Subject: RE: The IETF Mission

From: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar \(UMKC-Student\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:42:09 -0600

> let's consciously endeavor to ensure that sigificant non-standards 
> documents -- responsible position papers, white papers, new ideas, 
> etc.  -- become RFCs. 
 
i.e. something like IPng white paper series? 
 
On considering the feasibility ground, it is hard to standardize all
possible pet ideas into RFC series - due to scalability and hard-to-
reach-consensus reasons. For example, multi6 is discussing indirection
related proposals. The solutions ranges from minor configuration 
change to new layer. So, the task is really hard. At times, it will
make the WG task difficult (lack of focus etc.) OTOH, IRTF and new 
area related ideas should be made into RFC (as many have restricted 
mailing lists.)
 
Let's now consider usability grounds. The "pet" idea RFC series doesn't
serve the purpose:
 
  o If one is revisiting the old ideas, they will most likely prefer 
    mailing list archives (due to its descriptive nature) than RFC. 
 
  o As for citation purpose, position/opinion papers can be in any 
    form(RFC/mailing list post/expired ID/unpublished piece/even
    personal communication.) OTOH, vendors/operators value IETF 
    rubber stamp in the form of RFC for implementation/operational
    practice.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 06:21:09 -0600

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student)" <[email-masked]>
To: "Bob Braden" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 1:42 AM
Subject: RE: The IETF Mission

>     mailing list archives (due to its descriptive nature) than RFC.

Ummm, no. Most IETF mailing lists are pretty inaccessible to non-WG
participants because no one ever summarizes ideas before WG last call.
Some are more inaccessible because of posting volume levels. Some are
becoming more inaccessible because they don't restrict posting to
members and are filling their archives with spam. Professional
networking researchers might have time, but might not, and people
doing prior art searches for ideas that they've just been sued over
might make time, but if our mailing list archives continue to be our
institutional memory, we'll continue to suffer from Alzheimers (except
that we lose our minds first-in-first-out, while Alzheimers takes your
mind last-in-first-out).

It's not like people who weren't there can find things easily in the
RFC series (note the recent discussion on end-to-end as the TCP
research community realized that they weren't sure what was, and was
not, TCP). I-D draft respositories are an order of magnitude more
difficult to search, because ideas come, go, and come again in the
lifetime of discussion of a draft (and because, sadly, we rename
drafts for almost no reason when they are adopted as WG items, and
gratuitously challenge people to associate individual draft history
with WG draft history). Mailing list archives are an order of
magnitude more difficult than that (for the reasons previously
stated).

Spencer